Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return for AY 2015-16 declaring income of Rs. 5,38,310/-. The assessment order, passed under section 147 r/w 144B, made a significant addition of Rs. 5,13,29,17,743/- as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) afforded multiple hearing opportunities, the assessee did not participate. However, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantial discussion on merits, failing to provide reasons for the decision as required by Section 250(6). The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to afford an opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing a non-speaking ex-parte order without proper adjudication on merits, violating principles of natural justice?
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.06.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2014- 15/10301782 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Nirmal M Mulchandani Assessment year [A.Y.] 2015-16 wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte.
The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.03.2016, declaring total income of Rs. 5,38,310/-. The return was processed u/s. 147 r/w 144B of the Act and assessment order was passed on 25.05.2023, making the addition of Rs. 5,13,29,17,743/- as an unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte.
Appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has passed non speaking impugned order, ignoring the fact that the re-opening was done on irrational manner, hence erred in confirming the assessment order.
Both the parties are represented. Learned representative for the assessee moved an application with a prayer to submit the additional grounds of appeal
along with the prayer to adjourn the case. The application was rejected.
6. Heard learned representative for the parties and perused the records.
1. 7. Learned AR has argued that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice without affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. prayed to set aside the impugned order.
8. Learned DR has supported the impugned order.
Nirmal M Mulchandani 9. On the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned CIT(A) has afforded eight opportunities of hearing to the assessee but the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. The learned CIT(A) was compelled to pass ex-parte impugned order in such circumstances. However, it is further noticed that learned CIT(A) passed ex-parte impugned order without any substantial discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms for 10. statistical purpose. Impugned order dated 14.06.2024 is set Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 28/11/2024 Anandi Nambi, Steno Copy of the Order forwarded to: